People still peddling this line about the EU being a force for preventing war?
That was part of the early remit of the EEC, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the EU. The real hallmarks of the European project have been increasing supranational political power and spending an awful lot of money on farming subsidies. That's a far cry from preventing war by fiddling with the steel and coal industries - and didn't even include us.
The real start of the EU was Maastricht - and what happened straight after that? Genocide in the Balkans, which the EU failed utterly to do anything about on its own doorstep.
It comes to something when a national newspaper is that desperate to get headlines that they put up an article like this which is full of inaccuracies and just rambles. Does the idiot that wrote it have any literary merits? He obviously has no literary morals. Pound of flesh for the trashy article sir?
its a simple argument - but one that does, at a simple level make a lot of sense.
EU = partly made to prevent war between European countries
Poppies = remembering those who died in wars
Anti-EU + Poppies = contradiction.
The problem is to anyone who actually wants to delve in and examine the logic, it does not hold up well:
The main problem with it lies with what is actually the root cause of the lack of war between developed nations in the modern world. Is it the EU? No. Its globalization.
The globalization of wealth and trade (among others) had brought and end to traditional war between developed nations as it has created a situation where war is simply no longer beneficial. We now have nations that are interdependent on each other and if one were to fall the other would too.
Did the EU help this? Yes. No question here - the EU was one of the first and most successful experiments in globalization, and it did create an interdependent Europe that would avoid war.
However where this argument falls down is that this is not the 1980s any more. Now in 2017 the EU is actually one of the forces against the progress of globalization. It has declared that interconnections stop at Europe, and shall go no further. Hence why you see a raft of protectionism, isolationism, and pro-European-only policies.
Its the reason why a (admittedly small) group of pro-globalization individuals, including many tory MPs voted to leave.. its because they see that now the world has moved past the EU and true globalization means trade, immigration, networks and links with the whole world, not just Europe.
Europe is not the center of the world as it was when the last world wars happened, and it could be very easily argued that the EUs lack of will towards true world-wide globalization is actually a hindrance to the progress towards world-wide peace.
-- anyway, I could go on, but the point is that intial aims do not nessasarily equate to current day outcomes, and these days the abilities and scope of the EU to prevent war has been vastly out-grown by international globalisation and interconectivity.. some of which the EU actually stands against.
I read that article and I swear I got at least 3 malignant tumours afterwards. It's the most poorly argued mess I've ever seen.
Whilst I think the vote to leave was an act of economic self-harm, it has nothing to do with wearing a poppy (or not), and remembering those who have died in war. I would expect many if not most families in the UK had a relative who died in one of the two world wars, either whilst serving in the military or as a civilian whose house was bombed.
It would be fair to say that it was actually the older demographic of voters that chose to vote brexit - the same generations that have actually fought in our historical conflicts. To suggest such a statement is just typical left wing sensationalism that prevents them ever gaining traction.
If you legitimately think someone ought to not wear a poppy because of how they voted, please don't wear one yourself.
I've no doubt our ancestors would be rolling their eyes that this is the future they fought to protect.